SF Signal: VIEWPOINT: What makes sci-fi work?

VIEWPOINT: What makes sci-fi work?

What makes science fiction cross over into the mainstream? I have found myself thinking about that a lot recently because I recognize that there are many people (of whom several are in my family) that eschew science fiction in general. Watching a sci-fi film is doable for them (somebody saw all those Star Wars films after all) but reading a science fiction book or watching a TV show is not. Why is this? I think I have some aspects figured out and some idea of what helps science fiction crossover to a larger audience.

In my opinion, the number one aspect has to involve getting people to suspend their disbelief. It is the case with any work of fiction, but is harder with science fiction. If people can't identify with the people or aliens in the story, it becomes hard to suspend their disbelief when it comes to the main elements of the fiction. Sadly, most people find it easier to identify with long-dead prepubescent girls than aliens or people far into our future.

I was listening to Kenneth Johnson in his interview discuss taking ideas from stories that involve human struggles and classic challenges. This helps tremendously. We can all appreciate the struggles of The Fugitive - a man wrongfully accused who is attempting to clear his name or Jean Valjean from Les Miserables attempting to overcome his evil deeds by doing good. When you apply that similar approach to science fiction - as was done in The Incredible Hulk - it works and does so in a way that people can identify with. That identification makes it easier to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the work. Sure Hulk had some action in it, but it was Bill Bixby's personal struggles that made the show work. The movie failed because none of that came through - it was a pure action film that leaned too heavily on its special effects. None of the humanizing elements of the first Spiderman movie was in the Hulk film and as a result failed.

Films are unique in that I think people are more willing to accept the more outrageous conceits. The summer movie is a way to escape both summer heat and stark reality for a bit. Because of the limited amount time spent in the fiction people can and will deal with it more easily. But a book or TV show demands more time and as a result people seem less willing to accept large leaps of faith. My family are often the first to recognize when a science fiction show isn't going to make it. They don't get caught up in the hype or the concepts or the special effects and look at the shows as dramas or action or whatever the purest form is. And if you look at it, this is where the Sci-Fi Channel fails often. The basic story and human elements are often lacking or completely missing. Battlestar Gallactica worked for so long largely because it wasn't about science fiction but about people.

In any case, that's my view - what's yours? Why do you think science fiction has a hard time working on TV or in books with mainstream audiences?

I think in terms of the reading it is because of a mix between the commitment and stereotype.

Most people don't like to change what it is they do that much and image is also very important. People know that if they are seen reading some sci-fi book they will be judged a certain way and if they are caught reading a John Grisham novel they will be judged a different way. It really doesn't even come down to whether or not they might enjoy the book or not but they wouldn't want to actually find themselves enjoying it much less admit that to either themselves or someone else. I can think of quite a few people who would probably enjoy reading a good sci-fi novel but would never because of the image aspect of actually reading it.

For television shows I am a little biased since I don't typically watch any television. I find the popular shows usually pretty silly with no real meat or substance. The last sci-fi show I watched (where I mean I watched either an entire episode or multiple episodes) was Star Trek: Enterprise a few years ago. Usually, it was full of quick jokes and sexual innuendo. Very little good material or substance was ever there I found.

Posted by Brian on Monday March 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM

In terms of reading, I don't think it has much to do with the science fiction in of itself.

I think that to enjoy science fiction you have to have a relatively good grounding in science, and ideally science is something you should enjoy. Science fiction authors by necessity assume a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader, and spend a great deal of time explaining the stuff that they're inventing. If you don't enjoy that sort of thing, you just won't like science fiction literature.

And unfortunately, science literacy among the general population is pretty abysmal, so it's not the kind of thing most people will enjoy.

When it comes to TV and movies, I think it's more to do with stereotypes than anything else. People seem to accept Star Wars and similar action/adventure fare without too much complaint. But serious drama in a sci-fi setting falls pretty flat, despite some excellent entries as that goes.

Posted by Eric on Monday March 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Eric I find your argument rather interesting.

I don't know that you have to be grounded in forensics to enjoy crime dramas or the law to enjoy courtroom dramas. Certainly these fiction stories are easier to enjoy because the basic universe behaves the same, but peoples motives are just as inscrutable.

There are plenty of science fiction stories that doesn't require any science knowledge. The Miles Vorkosigan stores by Bujold are an example and I'm sure there are many others. Certainly hard science fiction (say by Niven or Vinge or Sheffield) require enjoyment of science, but I don't think you can say that about the majority of the genre.

It does seem slightly elitist though to say that only educated people can enjoy sci-fi. I don't mean to say you were being elitist, just that the argument could be construed that way.

Posted by Scottsh on Monday March 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM

While I agree that most people probably have a lacking understanding of science, there has just as probably been a great change in how we conceive the importance of science to our daily lives.

We have come to accept that science will produce change: new knowledge, new discoveries, new products etc. This might make more people accept the "SF mindset", that change is inevitable.

But let's not just assume things! Make this experiment: Ask anyone you know who doesn't read SF: "Do you expect the world to look the same in 50 years, or do you think it will change radically in some aspect?"
(Discard the typical Old Crank reply that the world will go to hell in a handbasket; old cranks always say that.)

Posted by A.R.Yngve on Tuesday March 11, 2008 at 4:40 AM

I think science fiction that is well received is done so by an audience willing to invest in it; whether that be time in front of a television, a movie ticket, or a book purchased. The investment comes from a desire for escapism and the success of the product is based on how well the consumer can escape into the product it self.

MOVIES
Star Wars was a phenomenon from day one. It has all the elements of a great story and plenty of characters to relate to regardless of what kind of person the member of the audience is. When you sit down to watch it, you're fully amerced into the universe created by the story. Whether you relate to the youth on the quest of nobility, the rogue along for the ride, or the princess risking everything for those she loves, you can amerce your self in it.

TELEVISION
Star Trek (all versions have it) The Next Generation is the opposite of Star Wars as it takes place in the future and in our own galaxy (or so)and like the other two examples there are new and fresh takes delivered on the classical character archetypes within a world, not a planet - but a ship, like we had yet to see (even in the first Star Trek series)from science fiction to that point.

All of the above examples provide multiple rich opportunities for the product's audience to escape into.

Examples that demonstrate the opposite would be:

Earth Final Conflict falls short, in my opinion, because it is too focused on action and political intrigue. There are not as many characters to relate to, and any person watching the show who lives a day to day life filled with any distasteful politics will be less interested.

Escape From New York falls short, in my opinion, because the characters are not enough of a departure from the classical archetypes and Snake is portrayed as a loner who wants nothing to do with society. Making him nearly impossible to relate to.

Posted by Caine on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 12:31 AM